What´s your favourite system for Mass Combat?

[Sir Robilar]

What´s your favourite system for Mass Combat?

I´d like to include some fantasy mass combat action in the next campaign but I don´t what the best system is for it. Right now I haven´t even decided which rpg we want to play so I´m open for recommendations.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

For fantasy, probably Hordes of the Things. I've also heard good stuff about Havoc, but I haven't played it, yet.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

As the criteria for what you need is...uh..."a bit vague" , I'll just list my favorite: War Machine.

War Machine was the system used in the Companion Set and Masters Set for Basic D&D ("BECMI"; Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals). It covered small to HUGE armies, and the PC's actually made a difference in the "Battle Force Rating" for their side. Of course, you could also, as DM, run the battle "in the background" as the PC's were off doing some covert teleportion op behind enemy lines.

The only other mass-combat system I've ever actually liked was Warhammer Fantasy Battle...but it's pretty specific to the Warhammer world.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Bluenose]

What sort of scale battles are you interested in? Do you want rules that are part of the game system, or a separate 'wargame' set? There are systems which do the first and lots of the second here.

 

[Oryan77]

I once tried finding some good rules for mass combat. But honestly, anything I found was just overly complicated for that aspect of the game.

It seemed to take the spotlight away from the PCs and I didn't want to do that. I also didn't see much difference in using the rules to determine outcomes of large battles or just rolling some generic rolls and adding in a few bonuses for each PC. The outcome will be the same (they either win or lose) and that outcome isn't really based on the individual actions of the PCs either way.

Instead, what I did was focus on the PCs experience in the battle and I described everything else going on around them. For example, I described that they are in the middle of a large battle, surrounded by enemies & allies both on the ground and in the sky. I described spells being cast and explosions going off around the battlefield. Then I ran a normal encounter with a select few enemies that the PCs fought. But I kept reminding them that tons of people were fighting around their little skirmish.

When they'd kill those enemies, I'd bring some more into the encounter as if the PCs were moving through the battlefield. Based on how their encounters played out (was it easy or difficult?), I gave bonuses or penalties to a couple of dice rolls to determine how successful their army was in the battle (or I'd just decide the outcome however I wanted).

This way, the PCs got to cast their spells or swing their weapons and drop enemies on their own. But they still had the impression that they were in a full scale war. I didn't have to learn new rules or teach them new rules. And at the end of the gaming day, they participated in a large battle just like they would have if I used mass combat rules.

I say, keep it simple and just wing it.

 

[Hautamaki]

I once tried finding some good rules for mass combat. But honestly, anything I found was just overly complicated for that aspect of the game.

It seemed to take the spotlight away from the PCs and I didn't want to do that. I also didn't see much difference in using the rules to determine outcomes of large battles or just rolling some generic rolls and adding in a few bonuses for each PC. The outcome will be the same (they either win or lose) and that outcome isn't really based on the individual actions of the PCs either way.

Instead, what I did was focus on the PCs experience in the battle and I described everything else going on around them. For example, I described that they are in the middle of a large battle, surrounded by enemies & allies both on the ground and in the sky. I described spells being cast and explosions going off around the battlefield. Then I ran a normal encounter with a select few enemies that the PCs fought. But I kept reminding them that tons of people were fighting around their little skirmish.

When they'd kill those enemies, I'd bring some more into the encounter as if the PCs were moving through the battlefield. Based on how their encounters played out (was it easy or difficult?), I gave bonuses or penalties to a couple of dice rolls to determine how successful their army was in the battle (or I'd just decide the outcome however I wanted).

This way, the PCs got to cast their spells or swing their weapons and drop enemies on their own. But they still had the impression that they were in a full scale war. I didn't have to learn new rules or teach them new rules. And at the end of the gaming day, they participated in a large battle just like they would have if I used mass combat rules.

I say, keep it simple and just wing it.

Ok, but what if the PCs are given command of a unit, or the whole army, or have input on the initial disposition and tactics of the army? What if you want the PCs' decision to enter the melee or remain on the hilltop in charge of the battle to be potentially meaningful? Perhaps the PCs enjoy strategy and tactics and want to be rewarded for effort put into helping their side win? Simply saying 'ok, nice plan, I guess you get a +2' after the PCs spend an hour debating each other and the NPC generals to come up with a detailed plan might be a little bit unsatisfying.

 

[Oryan77]

Simply saying 'ok, nice plan, I guess you get a +2' after the PCs spend an hour debating each other and the NPC generals to come up with a detailed plan might be a little bit unsatisfying.

No less unsatisfying than spending an hour roleplaying with the BBEG before a fight and getting no bonuses for fighting him. If my hour of roleplaying with a general earned me a +2 bonus to my armies attack, it sounds like I did my job.

I'd personally rather either participate in the battle by using my spells or abilities in skirmish fights. Or if I was directing the battle from a hilltop, I'd like to direct the attack and get some quick results so I can move on with the game and get to the roleplaying & adventuring part. I honestly don't want to spend hours rolling generic attacks to see if my army beat their army. And as a DM, I don't want to spend time learning all of these complicated rules just for a single encounter.

I'm not going to argue or debate this. If you want to get technical with some mass combat rules, then go right ahead. I personally think it's a bore and a waste of time though, which is why I mentioned my way of handling mass combat. If the OP doesn't like that, then there's nothing wrong with that. But I'm definitely not going to nit-pick and argue about it.

 

[pogre]

Savage Worlds has a pretty good Mass Combat system built in.

 

[Treebore]

My players and I had a lot of fun using "Fields of Battle" when I ran the invasion of Saltmarsh. It allows for PC's to be commanders, and have mechanical effects on their units, including morale and rallying them when they break, etc...

It isn't something your going to read and understand in 10 or 15 minutes, but I found it worked very well and was lots of fun! Plus it has a couple of card stock 3D models in it that are fun to build and use.

Its meant for a D20 system that uses HD and levels, so...

 

[1Mac]

Not sure if I've ever actually seen it, but I like the principle behind the Combat Unit template in the True20 Bestiary. Just thwack the template on your PCs and you're ready to rock. Foes can be other Combat Units or general swarms of Medium sized creatures. It takes about a page or two of explanation, unlike the typically complex wargamey fare you usually get from Mass Combat systems.